This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against the order dated 24-8-1985, passed by Mr. Akhlaque Hussain Larik, VIIlth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South) Karachi, whereby the ejectment of the appellant was ordered from the disputed premises.
2. The appellant is tenant of respondent -in respect of Room No.3, second floor, Bank House No.2, Habib Square, M.A. Jinnah Road Karachi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 270 plus Rs. 6.75 as betterment tax (total Rs. 276.75). The said premises is required by the respondent for the use of its branches in the area. On 9-8-1980, the respondent filed an application for ejectment under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the appellant.
3. The appellant filed written statement denying the requirement of the disputed premises by the respondent in good faith. According to them the respondent has adopted coercive measures to increase the rent of premises to over Rs. 1,000 per month, culminating into this litigation.
4. The respondent has examined Hassan A.I Ghulam (P.W.1), who is attorney of the Bank, while the appellant has examined S.M. Askari (D.W.1), officer and attorney of the Company.
5 On the assessm ent of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller has decided the issue of personal requirement against the appellant and consequently directed their ejectment from the disputed premises, hence the present appal.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zahid Hussain Burhani, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Hassan All Gilani (P.W.1), who is an officer attorney of (fie respondent Bank has testified that the Bank is facing great hardship on account of shortage of space. According to him Habib Square was constructed in early fifties and al that time it had 64 branches, and the Foreign Exchange Branch was working only on the ground and first floor. It is also stated by him that there has been tremendous increase in the business of Bank and the non-public dealing departments of the Foreign Exchange and other Branches will be shifted to the; remises presently occupied by the appellant and other tenants against whom similar applications have been filed. He was subjected to a searching cross-examination which had for its aim to establish that the present attempt to seek the eviction of appellant was nothing short of a refined form of blackmailing but nothing has been elicited to detract the value of his testimony. It may be added that the statement of Hassan A.I Gilani (P.W.1), to the effect that the disputed premises is required by the respondent for the aforesaid purpose has gone unchallenged.
8. The appellant has resisted the application for ejectment on the ground that the respondent was interested in getting the rent of premises enhanced. Reference has been made to the compromise made by the respondent against two of its tenants, namely, Pakistan Papersack Corporation, and M/s. Poly Propylene Products Ltd. (Rent Cases Nos. 569 of 1985, and 584 of 1985), copies of such orders are placed on record through application made under section 21 (3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Admittedly in both these cases the compromise was entered into after the tenants had agreed to pay the enhanced rent. This factor alone, however, does not militate against bona fides of the landlord. The demand of higher rent or acceptance of higher rent from other tenants of the same building by itself does not cast any doubt about the personal bona fide requirement, if the factum of bona fide requirement is independently proved. The respondent Bank had filed an application for ejectment against its other tenant namely, M/s. Thai jute Mills Ltd., which was dismissed by the Rent Controller. In appeal this order was set aside by my learned brother Hyder A.I Pirzada, J. In M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. v. M/s. That Jute Mils Ltd., (1988 CLC 2310), who examined all the contentions which are now raised before me and finally observed as follows:-- "A perusal of the eviction application and the affidavit-in-evidence of the officer of the appellant Bank would indicate that there has been a tremendous increase in the business of the Bank. 11 is pertinent to note that the officer of the appellant-Bank was cross-examined at length but no suggestion was made to him that the appellant-Bank does not require the premises in dispute for their own use.
It is well-established legal position that the assertion in the eviction application about requirement of the appellant Bank for its use of its branches which has been fully supported in appellant's Officer's deposition anti nothing has been brought out in cross-examination which could show that the claim of personal requirement for its own use and for the use of its branches is false or is based on wrong statement or disproved in rebuttal, has to be accepted. The respondent's attorney stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that no banking activities appeared to have increased and no branches appear to have been increased in the building or near about. It is pertinent to note that the appellant's officer when appeared in witness-box, was not suggested this fact. I am of the view that the evidence in this case fully justified the claim by the appellant Bank that it requires the premises in question for its own use and for the use of its branches because of the tremendous increase in the business of the banking."
9. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has not given any particulars regarding its requirement in the ejectment application and the same could not be pleaded in affidavit-in-evidence filed by Hassan A.I Ghilani (P.W.1). Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Rana khursheed Ahmed v. Additional District Judge. Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 1984 Lahore 169). The argument is, however, effectively answered by Justice Munawwar All Khan in Mst. Maryem v. Haji Ahmed, reported in 1984 CLC 2865. By stating that the landlord was not obliged, to unfold all details of his case in application for ejectment. In the case fir Malik Nisar Mohammad and another v. Abdul Rauf, reported in 1972 SCMR 561, it was observed: "In the application for ejectment the respondent was not required to spell out all the evidence or factors in support of his personal requirement and these things had to be stated only during the course of evidence."
10. Again the choice as to the premises, which the respondent Bank would like to occupy is surely a matter within its discretion, and the only fact that the respondent did not press for ejectment in respect of two of its tenants would not defeat its claim against the appellant. The sufficiency of accommodation is a matter, which the landlord has to decide.
11. In the result I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Rent Controller. The appeal has got no merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, allowed two months' time to vacate the demised premises.
M.Y.H./I-80/K.